Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Adam Roach <> Tue, 11 November 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9080C1A913E for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0b-Ikrcv31L for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A801A9108 for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sABKkdNi067836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:46:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:46:39 -1000
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron <>,
References: <> <> <20141111194603.GU8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20141111194603.GU8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:46:46 -0000

On 11/11/14 09:46, Ron wrote:
> Possibly the only outcome that would have our bowl of petunias thinking
> "Oh no, not again" would be if team H.264 bottles it on the eve of an
> RF announcement for VP8 by ISO and declares their codec to be also RF
> at the same time.  Which might be good for the world in general, but
> would leave us back at a stalemate again over our decision trigger.

This scenario certainly came up in thinking about the possible solution 
space. I simply filed it off into the "problems I wish I had" bucket and 
moved on. Given how remote this possibility is, I think we can cross 
this bridge when we come to it.